| Literature DB >> 29921933 |
Zuhair Iftikhar1, Olli Lahdenoja1, Mojtaba Jafari Tadi2,3, Tero Hurnanen1, Tuija Vasankari4, Tuomas Kiviniemi4, Juhani Airaksinen4, Tero Koivisto1, Mikko Pänkäälä1.
Abstract
Cardiac translational and rotational vibrations induced by left ventricular motions are measurable using joint seismocardiography (SCG) and gyrocardiography (GCG) techniques. Multi-dimensional non-invasive monitoring of the heart reveals relative information of cardiac wall motion. A single inertial measurement unit (IMU) allows capturing cardiac vibrations in sufficient details and enables us to perform patient screening for various heart conditions. We envision smartphone mechanocardiography (MCG) for the use of e-health or telemonitoring, which uses a multi-class classifier to detect various types of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) using only smartphone's built-in internal sensors data. Such smartphone App/solution could be used by either a healthcare professional and/or the patient him/herself to take recordings from their heart. We suggest that smartphone could be used to separate heart conditions such as normal sinus rhythm (SR), atrial fibrillation (AFib), coronary artery disease (CAD), and possibly ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) in multiclass settings. An application could run the disease screening and immediately inform the user about the results. Widespread availability of IMUs within smartphones could enable the screening of patients globally in the future, however, we also discuss the possible challenges raised by the utilization of such self-monitoring systems.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29921933 PMCID: PMC6008477 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-27683-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Overall waveform characteristics of normal (A), atrial fibrillation (B), and coronary artery disease with ischemic changes: T-wave inversion (C) and ST segment depression (D) conditions shown in ECG (lead I), GCG, and SCG signals.
Demographic information of registered study subjects.
| Study Group | Age (years) (Min-Max, Mean ± STD) | Height (cm) (Min-Max, Mean ± STD) | Weight (kg) (Min-Max, Mean ± STD) | BMI (kg/m2) (min-max, Mean ± STD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (*n = 23) | 23–53, 31.4 ± 8 | 172–190, 180 ± 5 | 61–125, 82.4 ± 16 | 20.5–39, 25.5 ± 4 |
| Atrial Fibrillation (n = 27/40) | 44–89, 73.3 ± 10 | 150–193, 171.4 ± 11 | 45–127.5, 81.5 ± 18 | 20–39, 27.5 ± 4 |
| Myocardial Ischemia (n = 11/21) | 40–83, 65.6 ± 14 | 150–190, 174.5 ± 12 | 55–105, 72.3 ± 16 | 17–30, 24.7 ± 4 |
| CAD (n = 11/21) | 58–82, 71 ± 8 | 154–186, 173.3 ± 10 | 65–131, 86.5 ± 19 | 21–38, 29 ± 5 |
*Number of patients with registered demographic information in each group.
Figure 2Overall diagram of the machine learning pipeline. Segmented SCG-GCG data are fed to the feature extraction function which forms a row-wise concatenation of features corresponding to each axis. In classification part, the final models are cross-validated by class prediction for each of the test cases is the dataset.
Figure 3SCG-GCG waveforms and corresponding selected features obtained in normal (A), AFib (B), STEMI (C), and Pre-PCI (D) conditions.
Figure 4Effect of mechanical axes (A) and each feature (B) to the overall AFib classification performance.
AFib detection performance using KSVM and RF with and without majority voting.
| AFib | RF | KSVM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without Majority Voting | With Majority Voting | Without Majority Voting | With Majority Voting | |
| ACC (%) | 92.0 | 96.8 | 94.8 |
|
| SP (%) | 87.6 | 95.6 | 94.3 |
|
| SE (%) | 94.5 | 97.5 | 95.0 |
|
Figure 5Effect of each feature to the overall classification performance in Healthy vs. Pre-PCI with Kernel SVM (A) and random forest classifiers (B).
Pre-PCI identification performance in two class setting for KSVM and RF.
| PrePCI | RF | KSVM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without Majority Voting | With Majority Voting | Without Majority Voting | With Majority Voting | |
| ACC (%) | 81.2 | 84.0 | 86.0 |
|
| SP (%) | 89.0 | 91.3 | 82.5 |
|
| SE (%) | 73.0 | 76.2 | 82.0 |
|
Figure 6Effect of each feature to the overall classification performance in STEMI vs. Pre-PCI with Kernel SVM (A) and random forest classifiers (B).
STEMI versus PrePCI detection performance with and without majority voting using RF and KSVM.
| STEMI vs PrePCI | RF | KSVM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without Majority Voting | With Majority Voting | Without Majority Voting | With Majority Voting | |
| ACC (%) |
| 71.4 | 70.6 | 69.0 |
| SP (%) |
| 81 | 79.8 | 76.2 |
| SE (%) |
| 62 | 60.3 | 62 |
Figure 7ROC curve showing the classification performance of two-class setting with KSVM and RF.
RF and KSVM F1 scores for 3-class setting.
| F score | Without Majority Voting | With Majority Voting | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | KSVM | RF | KSVM | |
| F1n | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.86 |
| F1m | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.72 |
| F1p | 0.56 | 0.67 | 0.57 | 0.56 |
| F1 | 0.72 |
| 0.72 | 0.72 |
RF and KSVM F1 scores for 4-class setting.
| F score | Without Majority Voting | With Majority Voting | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | KSVM | RF | KSVM | |
| F1n | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.80 | 0.85 |
| F1a | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.75 | 0.77 |
| F1m | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.56 | 0.57 |
| F1p | 0.70 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 0.59 |
| F1 |
| 0.73 | 0.68 | 0.70 |